Is the used market primarily the rejects ?

[TedBPhx]

Sold an SG I never got along with to a guy that went on to a successful career with that guitar.

[DBW]

I have six acoustics and seven electrics. I obviously don't need them all. Once I get to a different phase of life, I may let a few go. It won't be because they are bad. I guess I will have rejected some over others though. Decisions, decisions.

[alien]

How many times have you heard someone say...That's a nice guitar, I had one but sold it because of...the neck size...the nut size...it's not a dred...but it's short scale...sounds ok for a mahogany...and on and on. People might buy a guitar thinking it will be just perfect, for them, until it isn't. Sell it for some reason to another person and voila, it's now the perfect guitar. I have sold very good guitars because I came across one that I deemed to be just a bit better, for me. It's what we do!

I'm guessing that people sell "rejects" (guitars with structural or damage issues) because they can't or don't want to fix them. Many are sold to shops or at least to people who are willing to fix them.

[CoastStrings]

As many have already said, the correct answer is "not necessarily".

But guitar manufacturing produces a percentage of products that would not meet quality standards.

The manufacturers and distributors determine what is an acceptable return rate and leave it to the consumer to make their own determination by their acceptance standards.

Effectively, the consumer does the final "quality control" check.

Consumers that (a) know immediately what they want and (b) know how to examine the product will make that determination early and return the product. It goes into the "reverse supply chain" for resale or destruction.

The rest go into the used market.

[catndahats]

Late to the party---generally the used market is not rejects in my opinion.

In our relatively small AGF world however, after searching for a specific/somewhat rare high end model for a couple years, only to realize the same serial number was sold over and over (never staying in one place more than 3-6 months) that some must be better than others.

[tadol]

Originally Posted by CoastStrings

But guitar manufacturing produces a percentage of products that would not meet quality standards.

Effectively, the consumer does the final "quality control" check.

Consumers that (a) know immediately what they want and (b) know how to examine the product will make that determination early and return the product. It goes into the "reverse supply chain" for resale or destruction.

The rest go into the used market.

While this may be true for mass-produced guitars, this certainly does not apply to the boutique or solo luthier instruments (based on the boutique and solo luthiers I know). Any instrument that fails to meet quality standards never makes it onto the market. But then you need to imagine what those standards are - I’ve seen too many posts where someone complains about some incredibly insignificant aesthetic detail and feel they deserve a new “more perfect” guitar. Most of the time those concerns are expressed as what the perceived loss in resale might be. Too often, it feels like these expectations lead to more instruments that are built like jewelry rather than musical tools -

[kurth]

Originally Posted by CoastStrings

As many have already said, the correct answer is "not necessarily".

But guitar manufacturing produces a percentage of products that would not meet quality standards.

The manufacturers and distributors determine what is an acceptable return rate and leave it to the consumer to make their own determination by their acceptance standards.

Effectively, the consumer does the final "quality control" check.

Consumers that (a) know immediately what they want and (b) know how to examine the product will make that determination early and return the product. It goes into the "reverse supply chain" for resale or destruction.

The rest go into the used market.

"It goes into the "reverse supply chain" for resale or destruction."
You're inferring that very badly made instruments are destroyed. I find this hard to believe. First that a fatally flawed guitar makes it all the way thru the process of qc, then the retailers scrutiny etc , to the buyer. Maybe in some small alley chineseshop, but the major manufacturers would never let a guitar that is so badly made it eventually would be destroyed, to reach the consumer. So I'd guess a vast majority of the partially flawed guitars are resold as 'blemished' or returned to the manufacturer who dispose of them at their whims....probably as yardsales to their employees. I've never seen a pile of Martin guitars burning out back of the mexican factory. If these guitars are destroyed at some step in the process, it would be due to original qc in the factory. And it would be a incredibly small percentage. Most are salvaged.

[kurth]

I find most opinions in the thread anecdotal, and overly optimistic, based on the personal experience of buying or selling. I also think that the number of great guitars on the used market that are sold because of the ideosyncratic taste of the original buyer to 'most likely' be small in comparison to the instruments that are really partially flawed and that have moved on to the consumer. Obviously the lower the pricepoint , the higher the percentage. While I appreciate the optimism of guitar players to support their sources....most retailers have only one rule...the bottom line. And I'm sure that the requirements of retailers returning guitars to the manufacturer are stringent. That's exactly why they have quality control in the manufacturing process. Otherwise...I'd say that knowing a used guitars history if possible can determine the possibility of getting a lemon, or not. On Reverb, there's many good small sellers who are experts and scrutinize their products well before selling them. Those are the best sources. But also the most expensive. And there's also big dealers who take guitars in on trades at bottombarrel prices and then try to move those instruments at top dollar. Those.... avoid. I won't touch the market on the forum. It's so specific that it doesn't reflect reality at large. I also believe what was mentioned that most partially flawed guitars are redeemable with a good setup. That's where most of the flaws reside. Bad nuts...bad saddles. But there must be a certain percentage of guitars on the used market that are perfctly made, yet flawed in their sound. A much more difficult quality to weigh. That's what I'd call a lemon. A guitar that's perfectly made, yet due to materials or the stars not being aligned, doesn't met the snuff. The manufacturer should have a guitar testing room but I've never heard of that particular step. Bet there's alot of those floating around.

[Mr. Paul]

I asked this same question upon joining agf. Years later, I've now sold a lot of killer guitars here, no dogs at all. The only one that was not up to snuff was a D28 Marquis that was bought new and returned.

That one had fleas

[JHey!]

The used guitar market is a pretty big place, so generalizations probably aren’t helpful. The AGF classifieds are full of great guitars.

[packmule]

Originally Posted by kurth

I find most opinions in the thread anecdotal, and overly optimistic, based on the personal experience of buying or selling. I also think that the number of great guitars on the used market that are sold because of the ideosyncratic taste of the original buyer to 'most likely' be small in comparison to the instruments that are really partially flawed and that have moved on to the consumer. Obviously the lower the pricepoint , the higher the percentage. While I appreciate the optimism of guitar players to support their sources....most retailers have only one rule...the bottom line. And I'm sure that the requirements of retailers returning guitars to the manufacturer are stringent. That's exactly why they have quality control in the manufacturing process. Otherwise...I'd say that knowing a used guitars history if possible can determine the possibility of getting a lemon, or not. On Reverb, there's many good small sellers who are experts and scrutinize their products well before selling them. Those are the best sources. But also the most expensive. And there's also big dealers who take guitars in on trades at bottombarrel prices and then try to move those instruments at top dollar. Those.... avoid. I won't touch the market on the forum. It's so specific that it doesn't reflect reality at large. I also believe what was mentioned that most partially flawed guitars are redeemable with a good setup. That's where most of the flaws reside. Bad nuts...bad saddles. But there must be a certain percentage of guitars on the used market that are perfctly made, yet flawed in their sound. A much more difficult quality to weigh. That's what I'd call a lemon. A guitar that's perfectly made, yet due to materials or the stars not being aligned, doesn't met the snuff. The manufacturer should have a guitar testing room but I've never heard of that particular step. Bet there's alot of those floating around.

Yeah, most opinions on this thread are anecdotal - including yours. It's great that you think that second hand guitars are all lemons - just means that you're one less potential purchaser competing with the rest of us!

[kurth]

Originally Posted by packmule

Yeah, most opinions on this thread are anecdotal - including yours. It's great that you think that second hand guitars are all lemons - just means that you're one less potential purchaser competing with the rest of us!

Can you quote me where I said that ?

[mawmow]

I got some forty acoustics over the last fifteen years or so.
I did not keep them all.
And I do not remember buying a bad guitar, even on the net.
As my taste evolved and my skill and hearing improved,
I got new guitar and had to get money and room for them.

But I am with you when I see saddles shaved down on the bridge
pointing toward the need for a neck reset : We rarely see clear
side views of neck and saddle or close ups on frets.

[foxo]

Most certainly not. Here are some of the guitars I have let go of in the last five years since I started playing and why.

Seagull Entourage Mini Jumbo
Bought used. A great starter guitar, picked wisely. Sold to fund a Martin 00015m - I wanted a Martin as Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash among others were known to play them. Perhaps a superficial reason but it’s the guitar I have held onto the longest.

Yamaha FG820-12
Bought new. A good guitar but I found I just wasn’t playing twelve string enough to justify keeping it. Traded for a mandolin (now also sold).

Taylor 114
Bought used at a considerable discount. A great guitar but it didn’t complement my voice. Sold to a friend who is delighted with it.

Lowden F32
Bought used. This was a sore one to let go, it was superb, but I was buying a new car and I wanted one with Apple Carplay. The extra two grand got me a car with 5 miles on the clock and Apple CarPlay rather than 10,000 miles and without it. Whoever has that guitar now is a lucky so and so.

Gibson J50
Bought new. Was a very good guitar but when I spotted a 1996 custom shop Martin 00028 12 fret it had to go to fund that. Only regret is that I let it go too cheaply as I part-exchanged it at a guitar shop rather than selling privately.

None of these guitars were “lemons” as you can see from my reasons for selling of which there was a plethora of reasons. The two guitars I own now were both bought used too and I love them.

[OldHickory]

I’ve also wondered whether vintage guitars were better overall, or if it just seems that way because out of all of them, the ones that survived this long really are better (either high quality = more durable, or high quality = better taken care of/more willing to invest in).